Author Archives: Tom Egan

The Appeals Court has affirmed, pursuant to Rule 1:28, judgments in the following cases. Although the decisions do not appear to address any substantive issues of law, the full text of each decision may be ordered using the appropriate "Lawyers Weekly No." listed after the case name.

Where a mortgage lender has claimed that the defendant insurance company had a duty under a title insurance policy to defend the lender in connection with litigation against a homeowner, the lender’s claim must be rejected because the duty to defend that would be applicable in the context of general liability insurance is not applicable to the field of title insurance.

Where plaintiffs have moved for class certification in a suit alleging that the defendant improperly classified its drivers as independent contractors in violation of G.L.c. 149, §148B, the motion must be denied because of the plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy their burden of showing that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over questions affecting only individual members.

Where a single justice denied relief under G.L.c. 211, §3 from a court order disallowing the petitioner from personally filing a motion in his criminal appeal, the single justice’s decision must be affirmed in light of the fact that the petitioner was represented by counsel when he attempted to file the motion.

Where a judge granted a request by two attorneys for enforcement of their attorneys’ lien for fees and costs pursuant to G.L.c. 221, §50, following the termination of their services, the judgment was proper under principles of res judicata.

Where the defendant, a former New York pastor, was convicted of rape of a child by force and indecent assault and battery on a child based on evidence that he sexually assaulted two altar boys during visits to Massachusetts, there is no basis for the defendant's multi-argument claim that he is entitled to a new trial.

Where the plaintiffs have a claim against the defendant for fraudulently inducing them to buy an inn, the debt is not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2), as a judgment in a Vermont lawsuit between the parties does not have preclusive effect.